Meta

Category: USDA

A new report finds that there are no discernable differences in yields or pesticide use when it comes to genetically modified crops. The report comes as the United States Department of Agriculture has approved two new types of genetically modified potatoes to be developed. To discuss, Jeffrey Smith founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology joins RT America’s Simone Del Rosario and says “surprise side effects” are the most common effects of genetic engineering.

Just one month ago, a California judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to challenge the USDA on their recent, unlawful changes to how synthetic substances are evaluated in the production of organic goods.

While the charges are simply “alleged” for now, more than a dozen organizations came forward to press the issue. They discovered that at least 20 substances that would have been banned under the previous evaluation method had been allowed to slide through and into our organic foods.

Unsurprisingly, the federal agency requested that the case be dismissed because they believe that these organizations do not have the legal standing to press such a lawsuit. Our founding fathers probably rolled in their graves when the USDA suggested that any of the citizens of the country for which it serves did not have the “legal standing” to challenge them in court, but particularly those who may be be harmed by its doings.

Fortunately, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of San Francisco disagreed with the USDA’s sentiments, and is allowing the litigation to move forward. Capital Press reports, “Gilliam ruled that it’s plausible the plaintiffs will be harmed by the USDA’s policy change, which they say has allowed more than 20 synthetic substances to continue being used in organic agriculture.”

The organizations came together to voice their concerns (and press charges) last year, arguing that the agency’s changes to their procedures for handling synthetic substances in organics have effectively made it much more difficult to remove a synthetic ingredient from the list of approved substances. In other words, these new regulations are making it harder to keep organic food clean.

The organizations’ concerns are primarily focused on the USDA’s decision in 2013 to change the five-year “sunset process” for synthetics that are approved for organic farming. In the past, synthetic substances were banned from the list, unless two-thirds of the 15-member National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) agreed that they should be permitted to remain on the list.

The USDA has taken this policy and flipped it on its head; in order to eliminate a synthetic chemical from the list, now the NOSB must obtain a vote of at least two-thirds. So instead of voting for a chemical to remain on the list, the NOSB now has to vote to remove them. This means that even a majority of nine people will not be able to effectively remove unwanted substances from organic foods.

Will Fantle, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute, a nonprofit organic industry watchdog site, commented, “This gets at the heart of decision-making at the National Organic Standards Board.” Fantle also noted that now, instead of allowing these products to “sunset,” or simply fade out of use, the USDA’s new policy will force these ingredients into the “land of the midnight sun.”

The plaintiffs state that the USDA’s newly-minted process harms consumers who pay a premium for organic produce and products, because there is an expectation that these goods are produced with a minimal amount of synthetics. This deception also harms farmers, because it undermines the “organic” label. These are products that are supposed to be produced with integrity in mind.

The first lawsuit presented by the group was dismissed because it lacked specificity. Not to be deterred, the plaintiffs identified 20 different substances that would have been banned under the previous NOSB policy. In their lawsuit, they also state that “the USDA promulgated the regulation without providing the public the opportunity for notice and comment and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner[.]”

Hopefully, the lawsuit will be successful and the USDA will be forced to revoke their terrible new policy. If Americans continue to band together and fight against such deceitful practices, we may eventually be able to clean up our food (and our country).

In order to maintain strong bones and promote good health, you need to drink three glasses of milk every single day – at least according to official U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines. But one of the world’s top scientists says this is horrible advice, calling it “udderly ridiculous,” and out of step with what we know about sound nutrition.

Dr. Walter Willett, M.D., Ph.D., from the Harvard School of Public Health, is the second-most cited scientist in the entire field of clinical medicine, so he knows what he’s talking about. And government recommendations concerning milk intake, he says, are absolute bunk, and shouldn’t be adhered to by anyone looking to reduce his risk of bone fractures.

There are a lot of reasons for this, one being that “milk” today is nothing but a highly-processed, milk-like substance that’s been heavily altered through pasteurization, homogenization and the addition of synthetic vitamins and minerals, making it a processed food that provides little in the way of actual nutrition. But beyond this, the idea that drinking processed milk somehow strengthens bones is an industry myth.

According to Dr. Mark Hyman, M.D., a leading nutrition expert, milk and dairy products in general are something that people should avoid at all costs. Not only is milk a pro-inflammatory food (at least the processed kind), but it’s also counter-intuitive in terms of strengthening bones and reducing one’s risk of disease, and here are some reasons why:

1) The calcium in milkisn’t as bone-protective as we’ve all been led to believe. Studies show that vitamin D, magnesium and other nutrients are more important for strengthening bones than calcium. And the calcium in milk, when consumed by itself, may actually increase one’s risk of bone problems.

2) Processed dairy lacks the enzymes needed for proper digestion. When milk is pasteurized, the lactase enzyme that digests lactose is destroyed, which is why many people now suffer from lactose intolerance, and can’t stomach dairy products without supplemental support.

3) Drinking processed milk can actually increase your risk of cancer. That’s right, the calcium in milk has been shown to increase a man’s risk of prostate cancer by up to 50 percent. Milk consumption also increases levels of insulin-like growth factor-1, or IGF-1, a hormone that’s known to promote the development of cancer.

Don’t bother with the USDA’s food pyramid; it’s garbage

Dr. Willett is also outspoken in condemning the USDA’s food pyramid as a whole, which recommends heavy intake of carbohydrates and low intake of fats, two pieces of advice that constitute a recipe for chronic disease and death. The pyramid also pushes the low-calorie myth, failing to differentiate between the types of calories consumed, and how they affect the body differently.

The scientific consensus is finally switching to an understanding that calories aren’t what we need to look at, but rather the ratios of the types of foods we eat, and when we eat them. We now know that saturated fats are actually good for the body, and should be consumed in high amounts along with clean proteins, complex carbohydrates in the form of whole vegetables and lots of hydration.

Sugars, grains, artificial sweeteners and additives, and low-fat foods, on the other hand, only fuel inflammation and weight gain, leading to chronic health problems in the long run. Salt, which has long been vilified, is another important nutrient that you need as part of your diet, just so long as it’s unrefined sea or mineral salt.

“Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.” (Barack Obama, 2007)

Really?

In the last eight years, the global outcry against Monsanto and the other biotech giants has accelerated—but not a significant peep has emerged from the Obama White House.

And now, the bill dubbed The Dark Act is ready for Obama’s signature. It will make GMO labels on food an exclusively federal matter—and those labels will be confusing, weak, and therefore meaningless for the majority of Americans. The Dark Act is basically a free pass for Monsanto and the other biotech giants.

After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in GMO food issues—the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Certain kinds of plant growth are becoming more invasive in farmers’ fields. These super weeds are resisting the increased use of glyphosate and other herbicides. It has been going on for awhile now. Nature is fighting back. Weeds are finding new ways to adapt and survive.

Take for instance, the garlic mustard plant (Alliaria petiolata), which has become increasingly invasive in the Midwest in recent years. It is now recommended that farmers fight back this plant with cold weather application of glyphosate. This strategy also kills many great herbs, such as shepherd’s-purse and common chickweed, to name a few.

As ecological diversity of plant life disappears and as super weeds take hold in the fields, biotech corporations have only one solution…

Corporations, like Monsanto and DuPont, believe the solution to the problems they create is to continue the abusive cycle of creating stronger herbicides – which only endanger public health, strip the soil of its minerals and nutrients, and kill off beneficial, native plant life.

How else would these biotech corporations continue to protect their monopoly on genetically modified seeds? How else would they continue to control farmers, agriculture, and the food supply?

Even though these corporations continue to destroy the environment and public health, regulators at the USDA continue to give Big Biotech the green light for unleashing new waves of highly toxic herbicides.

Like partners in crime, Monsanto, DuPont, and the USDA are coming together to unleash the highly toxic, drift prone dicamba herbicide for Monsanto’s new line of GM dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton seeds.

Monsanto always has another “answer” for the problems they create. The USDA even admits that these new dicamba-tolerant seeds are “not likely to provide for agronomic sustainability” but they approved their commercial release anyway.

The USDA predicts that there will be an 88-fold increase in dicamaba spraying in the next year. To prepare for wide scale dicamaba sales, Monsanto has already asked the Environment Protection Agency to increase tolerance levels for dicamaba by 150-fold for use on cotton seed.

Dicamba is very drift prone, threatening organic farming and all broad leaf plants

Virtually all broadleaf plants, including fruits, nuts, vegetables, and non-GM commodity crops face certain eradication in the presence of dicamba. Not only does this herbicide drift after it is sprayed, but it also evaporates in the days and weeks after application, drifting for miles before destroying another person’s crops and plants. Dicamba is designed to disrupt the normal growth processes of plants through hormonal pathways.

Unleashing the new herbicide will have irreversible effects on native flora and fauna and will continue the chemical assault on human health. To make matters worse, dicamba has a bad reputation for drifting to neighboring fields and committing genetic damage to organic, non-GM crops. Organic farmers suffer crop losses because of herbicide drift. Herbicides like dicamba inadvertently yet predictably assault the property of organic farmers, hurting their yields and making it harder for them to keep their food free of toxins. Furthermore, organic farmers have no recourse in the courts because herbicide-doused, GM seeds are a protected, patented property. In fact, Monsanto has a sordid history of actually suing organic farmers, claiming that their GM technology is stolen when their GM seeds mate with plants from neighboring organic farms.

On top of all this, organic farms have to go through strict, expensive testing and validation to prove that their crops are indeed clean and free from biotech toxins. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t toxic GM food be placed under heavy scrutiny, labeled with warning stickers, and strictly sanctioned off so it won’t pollute real whole foods?

If herbicides and GM traits drift to organic fields, organic farmers should be able to sue Monsanto, not the other way around. Thankfully there are ways to grow clean food and protect it right at home, year round. These clean growing methods can and should be implemented on a large scale, but since the North American agricultural system is rigged and owned by the biotech industry, individuals will have to take matters into their own hands. Learning to grow your own food is a great way to make positive change happen, right at home.

Consumer groups have been calling on the U.S. government to test foods for glyphosate residues on behalf of the public, amid a growing body of evidence showing that the chemical is harmful to human health.

Microbiologist Bruce Hemming was hired two years ago to test breast milk samples for residues of glyphosate, a key ingredient in popular weed-killer Roundup. Hemming is the founder of St. Louis-based Microbe Inotech Laboratories and was previously of the opinion that glyphosate was not able to accumulate in the human body.

In fact, Hemming previously worked as a scientist for Monsanto Co., the manufacturer of the popular and toxic herbicide Roundup. Despite his original doubts, Hemming’s lab tests did find residues of glyphosate in the samples of breast milk he received from a small group of mothers.

Food companies, consumer groups and academics have also solicited testing for glyphosate residues, fueled by fears that prevalent use of the pesticide on genetically engineered (GE) crops may be contributing to health problems, as people eat foods containing residues of glyphosate.

Fears have been growing thanks to some recent scientific studies that have revealed health problems tied to glyphosate, as well as data released by the U.S. Department of the Interior which found glyphosate in both water and air samples.

Health concerns regarding glyphosate

Roundup is routinely sprayed on GE crops that have been engineered to be able to tolerate the toxic glyphosate content, such as corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa crops.

People who are suffering with certain conditions have higher levels of glyphosate in their bodies than those who are healthy. The following are some of the conditions that have been associated with glyphosate:

In farming communities, there is a strong correlation between exposure to glyphosate and ADHD, possibly due to the chemical’s ability to disrupt thyroid hormone functions

Tests on Roundup in the lab show the same type of oxidative stress and neural cell death observed in Alzheimer’s disease

Roundup can disrupt the vitamin A-signaling pathway, which is crucial for normal fetal development – causing birth defects

Researchers found that if either parent has been exposed to glyphosate during the two years before a child’s birth, the chances of that child developing brain cancer doubled

Consumer groups have been calling for the U.S. government to test foods for glyphosate residues on behalf of the public, in an attempt to establish what levels of glyphosate are common and whether the levels are dangerous. However, so far the requests have been ignored.

This doesn’t seem to be a particularly difficult request either – since 1991 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been annually collecting pesticide residue data in its Pesticide Data Program. This testing looks for residues on a range of food products, including baby formula and drinking water.

However, whilst testing occurs for other herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, it seems that the government agency does not test for glyphosate on a regular basis. The USDA claims that it would be too expensive to test for glyphosate residues – however, this seems like a poor excuse considering the costs already approved for the testing of other pesticide residues. It seems that the U.S. government is totally shirking its obligation to provide consumers with clarity over herbicide residues on food, and the associated dangers.

Should the American people compromise their health and future by letting the biotech industry continue to operate in sheer secrecy?

The new “anti-GMO labeling law” proposed in the U.S. Senate by Roberts and Stabenow would allow the biotech industry to continue on just as they have – in utter secrecy. The bill, a negotiation between two senators and industry lobbying groups, would exempt major portions of current and future GMO foods from being labeled. For example, if a biotech product is genetically modified with items “found in nature,” (such as bacteria), then it can be passed as a natural food product. Other GMOs, which cannot yet be detected by current technology, would also pass as whole foods under the new law. This would include foods made with non in vitro recombinant DNA techniques.

All food transparency laws to be wiped off the books as USDA pushes new, unreadable QR product code

If signed into law, the bill would also wipe out existing GMO transparency laws established in states like Vermont, and would block any state from passing their own GMO labeling laws. Over the next two years, Americans would be forced to wait, as the USDA gains the power to establish new federal rules for labeling GM foods. Since the USDA has many longstanding ties to Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry, it is only fitting that the USDA would get to make all the rules for Big Biotech if this law came to pass!

A future USDA Secretary would also gain the power to determine what “amount” of GMO ingredients qualified the food for labeling. This newfound USDA power is a formula for deception. In theory, up to 99 percent of GMOs could pass as natural under the USDA’s rules, which would most definitely cater to Big Biotech’s poisonous domination of the world.

Even more ridiculous is that the new law would roll out a uniform QR code system that would be impossible to read and decipher, from a consumer standpoint.

Current food labels are a fraud, a distraction

Today’s food labels are incomplete, leaving consumers clueless as to what’s really going into their bodies. Consumers are counting calories instead of chemicals, as they are distracted from the real problems with food.

Food labels should be among the most transparent of all documents. A real food label should not be a manipulation of words, of clever marketing, of claims that have not been validated. Food labels should come with full-blown scientific documentation, similar to vaccine insert sheets, giving consumers further knowledge of the product’s chemistry and risks. Consumers should have sufficient knowledge about products to make informed decisions as to what they put into their bodies.

How does genetic modification of food affect human genes over time, from one generation to the next? The study of epigenetics should apply. How do pesticides and changes in the genetic sequence of foods affect the human endocrine system and normal hormone messaging? Changes in food chemistry can signal changes in how the body behaves.

How does glyphosate’s destruction of microbial hosts in the human gut contribute to changes in a person’s behavior, cognitive function and immune system de-activation?

Transparent food labels are not enough. Consumers need to know the science behind the changes in their food. Rigorous testing of foods should list heavy metal, pesticide and herbicide content. Consumers should know what these elements and chemicals are doing to their bodies and minds.

If we had real science and transparency working in the public’s interest, then healthcare could be revolutionized. Consumers would be able to see where all their health problems are actually derived from – the chemicals we’re being secretly force-fed.

No compromising on transparency or human health

American consumers should not compromise one bit on the new Roberts-Stabenow legislation. Organizations like Whole Foods should not be supporting any kind of anti-GMO labeling law compromise that will only blind the American people and prevent the science behind GMOs, heavy metals and pesticides from coming out in the open. Why would Whole Foods CEO Walter Robb come out calling this fraudulent law an “incredible thing” that was “accomplished together?”

There should be no compromise. Consumers should have 100 percent transparency, more than just QR coding language, more than fake labels that gloss over the real health issues created by biotech experiments with food.